Clinical Decision Support System‐Assisted Pharmacy Intervention Reduces Feeding Tube–Related Medication Errors in Hospitalized Patients: A Focus on Medication Suitable for Feeding‐Tube Administration. Issue 3 (25th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wasylewicz, Arthur T. M.; van Grinsven, Renske J. B.; Bikker, Jessica M. W.; Korsten, Hendrikus H. M.; Egberts, Toine C. G.; Kerskes, Catharina H. M.; Grouls, Rene J. E.
• Is Part Of: JPEN, Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. Volume 45:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 625
• Page End: 632
• Publication Date: 2020-06-25
• Subjects: clinical decision support -- enteral feeding -- enteral feeding tube -- medication errors; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; 615.85484
• DOI: 10.1002/jpen.1869
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-6071

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Administering medication through an enteral feeding tube (FT) is a frequent cause of errors resulting in increased morbidity and cost. Studies on interventions to prevent these errors in hospitalized patients, however, are limited. Objective: The objective was to study the effect of a clinical decision support system (CDSS)–assisted pharmacy intervention on the incidence of FT‐related medication errors (FTRMEs) in hospitalized patients. Methods: A pre‐post intervention study was conducted between October 2014 and May 2015 in Catharina Hospital, the Netherlands. Patients who were admitted to the wards of bowel and liver disease, oncology, or neurology; using oral medication; and had an enteral FT were included. Preintervention patients were given care as usual. The intervention consisted of implementing a CDSS‐assisted pharmacy check while also implementing standard operating procedures and educating personnel. An FTRME was defined as the administration of inappropriate medication through an enteral FT. The incidence was expressed as the number of FTRMEs per medication administration. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to calculate the incidence ratio (IR) comparing both phases. Results: Eighty‐one patients were included, 38 during preintervention and 43 during the intervention phase. Incidence of FTRMEs in the preintervention phase was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07–0.23) vs 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00–0.04) in the intervention phase, resulting in an adjusted IR of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.10–0.18). Discussion: Incidence of FTRMEs, as well as the IR, is comparable to previous studies. Conclusion: The intervention resulted in a substantial reduction in the incidence of FTRMEs.